Mohammed Noordeen v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.08.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10637 of 2017 1.Mohammed Noordeen 2.Mathiazhagan 3.Sornam ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to -Vs1. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy District, Trichy.

(Crime No.4 of 2010) ...1st Respondent/Complainant

2. V. Shanmugam ...2nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to record the compromise reached between the petitioners / accused nos.1 to 3 and second respondent / de facto complainant and to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.279 of 2016 in connection with the Crime No.4 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Trichirappalli.

For Petitioner :

Mr.C. Deepak For R-1 :

Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R-2 : Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Original petition is filed to record the compromise reached between the petitioners / accused nos.1 to 3 and second respondent / de facto complainant and to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in C.C.No.279 of 2016 in connection with the Crime No.4 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. V, Trichirappalli.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

3. On the basis of the complaint preferred by the second respondent/defacto complainant, a case was registered by the first respondent in Crime No.4 of 2010, for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 63 of Indian Copy Right Act, 1957 and Section 103, 104 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. The first respondent filed final report which was taken on file in C.C.No.279 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Thiruchirappallli.

4. After the complaint, at the advise of the elders and well wishers, the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have entered into a compromise. The parties appeared before this Court and stated that the Joint Compromise Memo has been signed by them on their own will and volition. The identities of the parties are verified with reference to the authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court. The identities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police. In the Compromise Memo, the second respondent has stated that he is willing to withdraw the criminal case and that he has no objection for quashing the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.279 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Thiruchirappalli.

5. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping this matter pending. Hence, on the basis of the compromise memo signed by the parties, the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.279 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Thiruchirappalli, is quashed in toto and the Joint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

(*)JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO XEROX COPY IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Tiruchirappalli 2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli 3.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy District, Trichy.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai +One cc to M/s.C.Deepak, Advocate, SR.No.72211 trp RL/6C/2P/MR/KKR/SAR1/29/8/2017 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10637 of 2017 11.08.2017